Effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination on hospitalization and death in the adult and older adult diabetic population: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetic patients are at a higher risk of getting pneumococcal disease and are therefore recommended to get vaccinated. The aim of our systematic review is the retrieval and analysis of all available evidence on the effect of pneumococcal vaccination on the risk of hospitalization and death in adult patients with diabetes. MEDLINEand EMBASE were searched from inception until January 2023. We included all studies investigating whether pneumococcal vaccination reduces the risk of dying or being hospitalized in diabetic patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias. Only two studies, encompassing a total of 68,246 subjects, were considered eligible for inclusion and of high quality. In both studies polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccination was associated with a reduction of the risk of hospitalization or death in adult diabetic patients (aHR: 0.76 in one study, aOR: 0.97 in the other one). However, in neither of the two included studies the lower risk was statistically significant. Further research is needed due to the potentially major clinical implications for diabetic patients. The results of this systematic review can serve as a foundation for future studies, indicating the importance of continuing research in this area to improve patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".